RRJ # 6

Hozan Hasan

EAP1/C

May 4, 2011

PoliticalScience

Reference:

Aaron, D. The world after Bin Laden. (2011, May 02). Washington Post. Retrieved May 04, 2011 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/topic-a-the-world-after-bin-laden/2011/05/02/AFF7ujhF_story.html

 

Summary:

            In the article, “The world after Bin Laden,” the other asked experts about the implications for U.S security and policy, especially foreign relations. The experts are explaining that after Bin Laden was killed the USA administration and the U.S Congress have to make a decision about reducing the American forces and military in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The experts also criticizes that Pakistan did not support the U.S military for eradicating Al Qaeda members. The experts showed that Pakistan was involved with Al Qaeda and tried to hide Bin Laden in the country. Another article explains that the United States has to prepare an international conference for all the regional players that have a big interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it said not only does the United States have to support these two countries, but also the countries like China, Russia, and India should be included.

Reaction:

            The United States changed its policy after September 11, and they announced the war against terror and all the countries that support Al Qaeda and radical groups. The United States sacrificed and spent billions of dollars in the war against terror. But after Bin Laden was killed, experts and politician think that Mr. Obama’s administration and the Congress should change the strategy and the policy of the war against terror because after Bin Laden, the ideology of AL Qaeda is melting and there is no leadership like Osama to organize jihad groups and lead them to fight against the USA and democracy. It is true Osama was the charismatic leader between jihad groups and he organized them around the world, and he created hundreds of radical groups based on his jihad ideology, but after he was killed, all these groups separated and they do not have a strong relation between each other. So automatically Al Qaeda’s ideology and power will be reduced.

After Osama was killed, not only did the United States of America celebrate and became happy about that, but also most of people around the world became happy about that great news, because Osama not only announced jihad against the American people but also he announced jihad against most of the Muslim countries. In my opinion the world after Osama will become more peaceful and will be reduced the fear of terror. Furthermore, the United States government will try to change its strategy of war and using military forces against terrorist groups and reduce the amount of solders outside the U.S.A, especially in Afghanistan.

Finally, as the writer of the article said, “Al Qaeda without Osama Bin Laden is like a hive without its queen;” the terrorist movements and the terrorist attacks are declining day after day. And the world is becoming safer after Osama and all people will disappear their fear and feeling of threat of terror attack and explosion. The United States policy will change toward the Islamic countries and Middle East countries, especially the thinking that terror equals Islam and the sticking of the word “terror” to the Islamic community. 

HozanHasan

April 27, 2011

PoliticalScience

Reference:

Worth, R. B (2011, April 24). Syrian crisis tests the mettle of its autocratic ruler. New York Times. Retrieved April 25, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/middleeast/25assad.html?ref=middleeast

Summary:

            In the article, the Syrian crisis is one of the hot topics in the Middle East. It is talking about the position of the government and Bashar Al Asaad’s position as a leader. It explains that the Syrian government has choices to leave or remain in power, but according to the last progress in Syria, the people strongly refuse the reform and they insist on changing the power, but the president is trying to make a reform inside the government and at the same time trying to kill the people who oppose their political party.

Reaction:

            The Syrian government by killing their people is making a big mistake, because the situation is going to be worse than in the past. Mr. Assad’s family are control the important and strategic position inside the government, especially the military forces. So they try to use the military power and fight with their people to make them silent. But the people and the opposition want the big change of government and they want a free election with a democratic system. So the Syrian people did not let Mr. Assad remain in his position; they demonstrate against the government.

         Furthermore, the Syrian government supports Hammas and the radical groups, and has a good relationship with Iran and some of the Middle Eastern countries. But the United States and Europe are against the Syrian government, especially after they supported terrorist groups and Iran for their nuclear power and weapon; all of these things make the USA and Europe angry, so they really try to change the Syrian government and the dictatorship president Bashar Al Assad.

        Finally, Bashar Al Assad’s family will not leave power easily and they inherited the power from their father. It is going to be a bloody situation for changing the Syrian government and political system.

Reading Reaction # 4 Syrian Uprising

Hozan Hasan

EAP1/C

April 20, 2011

PoliticalScience

Reference:

Shadid, A. (2011, April 19). Syria steps up its crackdown while promising reform, from http://www.nytimes.com   Retrieved April 20, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/world/middleeast/20syria.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world

 Summary:

            Syria is one of the big countries in the Middle East. In the article which I read, it is talking about the Syrian dictatorship government which has been governed by the Assad family during the 40 years they manipulated the power in Syria. Now the people of Syria are trying to change the political system in the country and they are trying to change peacefully without violence or killing people. The people of Syria want to change the power by the same way of Egyptian people when thousands of people gathered in Tahrir Square and they made Hussni Mubarak resign from power.

Reaction:

            According to the article, the Syrian people struggled with the dictatorship system and the ruling of the country by one party for a 40 year span; the people want freedom, a democratic system, a pure election, and a good life. The Syrian government surrounded the people, and by using weapons and killing their own people, separated the opposition, because the government did not want that kind of idea for change. In place of that, Mr. Assad announced the reform plan for the government and made reform inside the country; the people did not care about that kind of reform; they really want to change the system. Now in Syria the people have sacrificed and spent most of their life with Al Assad’s family ruling, so they have  just seen using violence against people and executing anyone who is against the Baath party ideology and Bath’s thinking. The new generation in Syria are trying to change the political system and political ideology like Egypt and Tunisia happened before 3 two months ago. Furthermore, the USA by funding and financially supporting the Syrian groups who are against the government, opening opposition TV channels like Barada TV, and encouraging the people to try to change the system peacefully. It is one of the successful methods the USA has tried to use for the countries whose people struggled with the dictatorship system and who have seen one leadership for the whole life span without changing. The USA tries to show the people the life of democracy and the smell of freedom, because most of the people in Syria didn’t know much more about the good things in democracy, because they lived with the one party system for 40 years. It is a long time for a country like Syria. The Syrian government has the radical thought about the people and they are against any ethnic groups inside Syria, because they didn’t accept different ethnic groups in Syria and they try to execute people and terrorize them. Until now the Kurdish people inside Syria have had no citizenship rights, and the government didn’t accepted them as citizens because they are Kurdish and their identities are Kurdish. The numbers of Kurdish people in Syria are more than 3 million people, and for thousands of years they have been living in Syria, but the dictatorship government didn’t give them the rights of citizenship because they are not Arab. There are unequal inside Syria and there is a huge problem like corruption. The groups of people of Syria who support the government have the power, money, and force, and they are free to do everything without being investigated. The people of Syria support the idea of changing the government but they are afraid of execution, and killing by the government; they are also afraid of the war happening like Libya; they are afraid of Bashar Assad’s using a dangerous weapon against their people. Generally the people of Syria believe that the dictatorship power in the country must change as soon as possible because that system didn’t do anything for the country during 40 years.

Aren’t all children gifted?

Hozan Hasan
EAP1/C
April 06, 2011

Reference:
Myers, D.G. & Ridl, J. (1981, February-March). Aren’t all children gifted? Today’s education published from davidmyers.org Retrieved April 08, 2011 from http://www.davidmyers.org/davidmyers/assets/Arent.Child.Gifted.pdf

Summary:
In the article, “Aren’t children all gifted?,” It explains that there is nothing named gifted for separating children into two classifications, and the writer gives to us so much evidence to prove that in the whole world and in nature all children are equal, and there is no existence for the word “gifted”, and he opposes that system of gifted education. He also explained the current educational system in some countries and especially in the USA, although he showed us that all educational systems now do not help children to grow in the best way. Both gifted and non gifted children are harmfully controlled and affected by gifted educational system.

Reaction:
According to the article, I completely agree with the writer that classifying child between gifted and not gifted classes is the wrong idea and wrong system for children; he encourages the parents not to push their children to make them obtain a high score to become gifted, He also encourages non gifted children’s parents to not neglect their kids because he is not smart. He explains that all children naturally equal in ability and equal in their innate selves, so he said that “giftedness is just a concept” and he showed to us that every country and every generation has a different definition for the word “gift”. The writer agrees with the idea of equality in schools. As I understood, putting children in classes without separating them is better than stigmatizing them; in place of stigmatizing, making all children study the same program and the same education system, and teachers encourage children equally to study without separating them to different classes. The article showed us both gifted and not gifted children suffered from that separation and it psychologically affected them. Parents of gifted children push their child to study more and teachers give them more information and more stuff to study; as a result, the gifted child feels stress and feels controlled by others. In the other hand, the not gifted child is assaulted by his parents and neglected at school by teachers, and they did not include him in anything, so the child feels angry and bad. Mr. Myers said that “children who are exceptional in reading, after all, are not always exceptional in math, and those who are exceptional today may not be so exceptional tomorrow.” It is really important for parents and teachers to realize that no one is perfect and no one is born perfect, so every individual is gifted in a particular thing. Everyone is talented without separation to gifted or remedial schools.
Finally, it is important for parents to know that their children are gifted. We must encourage our children to succeed in life and do well, until now there is no studies that define “gifted” well or completely, also there are no tests to measure the different skills. All studies and IQ tests can’t measure all kinds of intelligence; they just measure specific people and they describe them in different ways. The best education for children is not to separate them, put them with each other, teach them equally, and encourage them equally without differences.

Why Do Schools Stigmatize “Gifted Children”?

Bennett,p.w. (2010, November 27). Smart Kids: Why Do Schools Stigmatize “Gifted Children”?. http://educhatter.wordpress.com. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from

http://educhatter.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/smart-kids-why-do-schools-stigmatize-gifted-children/

Why Do Schools Stigmatize “Gifted Children”?

Summary:

According to this article, we assign children to schools as gifted, and remedial are the big common issues in the USA and Canada and most controversial topics between parents to send their children to gifted school, and they work hard just to pay for their kids’ private school. It’s really unfair to separate children to gifted, remedial programs, because of creating two types of schools and dividing kids into smarter and dumber.

Reaction:

            According to 109 responses of that article, most of them believe that labeling is the worst thing for kids, because parents think that if they send their kids, they just label them as a good student or kids can’t be smart and successful; furthermore, students who are labeled in remedial schools or class feel not smart, and they don’t care about studying, homework, or classes. According to some responses which I read, they don’t believe that labeling kids makes a difference and they wrote that every child, when born is different from the others naturally and skills differ between children, so parents can’t push kids to try to study hard to be able to label them in gifted classes. Also labeling affects the public schools’ remedial students psychologically; hundreds of years before gifted schools existed, everyone studied at public schools and those public schools created rich, smart, successful people; thousands of philosophers graduated from high schools. At that time there was nothing, named “gifted” or “exceptional “schools. The individual’s effort in class and student’s performance and studying hard was important for being smarter, not separating nor labeling making kids smarter or successful. Generally, poor people and middle class incomes in society do not like separating and labeling kids because they have no money or a high income to pay too much, fees of private classes or private schools for their children. For that reason they believe in equality among students without labeling them, but rich parents support the idea of labeling kids, because they have a higher income and they can pay for their kids to study at the best schools. Stigmatizing gifted children has a bad effect on kids because emotionally and socially they feel farther away from other students and society; they feel isolated and poor in communicating. It is wrong to separate your kid and send your kid to private places far from public places.

Consequences of USA intervention in Libya

Reference:

Miller, J. (2011, March 27). Rumsfeld: If Gaddhafi stays, U.S reputation damaged, American enemies emboldened.ABC News. Retrieved March 27, 2011, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rumsfeld-gadhafi-stays-us-reputation-damaged-american-enemies/story?id=13232616

Kirkpatrick,D.D.( 2011,March 21). Hopes for a Qaddafi exit, and worries of what comes next. New York Times. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22tripoli.html?_r=1&ref=muammarelqaddafi

Summary:

Consequences of USA intervention in Libya

Libya is an African country .Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has led this country for more than 40 years. Now the people of Libya rebel and are uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, and they are trying to change the government as much as they can. The United States of America and an international coalition decided to intervene and support the voice of the Libyan people (the rebellion), which contains tribal people, academics, workers, radicals, and liberals. Is the decision to attack logical?  Did the USA have a plan after Qaddafi comes down? Did the USA and the international coalition know who would lead the Libyan country in the future? Will radicalism or liberalism lead the country after Qaddafi? 

Reaction:

I think Mr. Obama's administration made a wrong decision to attack the Libyan government without any plan or arrangements. According to Christian Amanpur's TV program, she interviewed with Congressmen and Congress women about the decision of attacking Libya; they explained that Mr. Obama has no plan about this attack. Did the rebels succeed in their uprising and Qaddafi go down? What will happen if Qaddafi becomes successful in the war and leads the country again? What will happen if Qaddafi attacks with chemical weapons on his people? What will the USA government do if all of those expectations happen? What is the plan for that? Mr. Obama needs to make a plan for the Libyan country after Qaddafi. And also he should know that Qaddafi is a dangerous person; he does not leave a country peacefully, and he’ll fight, destroy the country and kill his people to remain in his position as a leader. All Middle Eastern leaders are the same. They fight, kill, and destroy the country just for remaining in the power as a leadership. Furthermore, the people of Libya are divided into two parts. The first part supports the government and they fight to keep Muammar el-Qaddafi in power. The second part of the people of Libya is against the government, which is called rebellion or revolt; they fight against Muammar el-Qaddafi. As I understood now Libya is divided into two parts, they fight with each other, the situation is becoming worse, and the country has led itself to go through the civil war in the last few days. The USA tries to fight against Muammar el-Qaddafi; for that reason there are American military attacks by land, and airstrikes in Libya, and thousands of civilians are killed because of bombing attacks and airstrikes. Libya is a different situation than Tunisia and Egypt, because the people of Libya are based on a tribal society and most of the tribes are now supporting Qaddafi and fighting with the rebellion. Now in Libya opposition groups have appeared with different ideas and no one is able to predict who will rule Libya after Qaddafi. I think we must pay attention to which of the opposition groups should rule in the future. If a group leads the country but is worse than Qaddafi, what should the USA do? The US forces have to stay in Libya for a long time to rebuild a country and create a democratic government which is elected by the Libyan people, and the USA should support this government for a while. Instead, the USA and international coalition made a decision to intervene to Libya and fight against Qaddafi; they must stay on Libya after Qaddafi, because every group try to reach a power and the country will go through a civil war, a war for obtaining power, a war for oil, and a war for countries money.